criterionforum.org

This is now available to buy or rent on VOD

Matt wrote: Tue Dec 05, 2023 4:12 am This is now available to buy or rent on VOD

Also streaming on Apple+.

I just revisited Jean Renoir's The Golden Coach on Raro's Blu-ray (which looks gorgeous and on my display a bit more naturalistic than DVDBeaver's caps which seem a little yellow). I completely forgot that Scorsese recorded an intro for Criterion's DVD reissue as it wasn't licensed for the Raro Blu-ray. I bring it up because I remember Scorsese mentioning the film's famous ending, which had to be restored (and FYI it looks great on the Blu-ray with none of the strange problems that plagued the Criterion DVD). I wonder if Scorsese had it in mind when he came up with the ending of Killer of the Flower Moon? Not in the sense that he wanted to serve the same exact idea - the films are too dissimilar - but perhaps in wishing to address cultural barriers inherent in one's perspective, maybe Renoir's film gave him the idea that an ending with a modernist staging would be the answer?

Apparently a ridiculous rumor came out in February 2024 that Paul Thomas Anderson secretly rewrote and completely overhauled the script for Killers of the Flower Moon. I completely missed that until today when a regurgitated podcast video popped up on my social media feed and some asshat made that argument with a ton of misinformation presented as fact - for example, he claimed Eric Roth confirmed this which is complete bullshit. Such is the times we're living in...

hearthesilence wrote: Fri Mar 21, 2025 3:49 am Apparently a ridiculous rumor came out in February 2024 that Paul Thomas Anderson secretly rewrote and completely overhauled the script for Killers of the Flower Moon. I completely missed that until today when a regurgitated podcast video popped up on my social media feed and some asshat made that argument with a ton of misinformation presented as fact - for example, he claimed Eric Roth confirmed this which is complete bullshit. Such is the times we're living in...

Not saying this claim is itself true, but he's done this elsewhere (most recently for Ridley Scott's Napoleon, which Joaquin Phoenix threatened to quit unless PTA was brought on as a script doctor)

Never Cursed wrote: Fri Mar 21, 2025 3:58 am

hearthesilence wrote: Fri Mar 21, 2025 3:49 am Apparently a ridiculous rumor came out in February 2024 that Paul Thomas Anderson secretly rewrote and completely overhauled the script for Killers of the Flower Moon. I completely missed that until today when a regurgitated podcast video popped up on my social media feed and some asshat made that argument with a ton of misinformation presented as fact - for example, he claimed Eric Roth confirmed this which is complete bullshit. Such is the times we're living in...

Not saying this claim is itself true, but he's done this elsewhere (most recently for Ridley Scott's Napoleon, which Joaquin Phoenix threatened to quit unless PTA was brought on as a script doctor)

I wonder how many other big writer-directors today still do doctoring/punch-up work for films they have no intention of directing

I was at a screening where David O. Russell and Alexander Payne playfully discussed their contributions to the Meet the Parents franchise. Payne and his writing partner do get credit on schlock they contribute to, such as Jurassic Park III.

Noah Baumbach has writing credits on Mr. Popper’s Penguins and Madagascar 3

Kenneth Lonergan does. He mentioned it at a post-screening discussion he held after Dodsworth (the William Wyler film) and I remember him emphasizing that it's actually how he makes a lot of his income when people snickered.

Re: Killers of the Flower Moon, I dug a little more and Roth's son Alec Roth (a filmmaker himself) responded on social media when the rumor hit, saying it was completely untrue and that the post he was responding to should be deleted.

I'd honestly rather have one more $10 million Kenneth Lonergan movie than ten more $200 million movies by Martin Scorsese (or Ridley Scott).

Eric Roth absolutely did not deny Paul Thomas Anderson involvement. Big fan of Eric Roth's work, last thing I listened to was him specifically not saying that he was sole writer. He leaned into: whatever he did I'm sure was helpful, sort of speak. I can find the interview, I just wanted to mention that. He doesn't show up on many podcasts, so it's not hard to find but it may have been for Here.

Also, when looking at the book and (one of the first) drafts, you can see the film and awards consideration draft being pretty distant from each other. The interviews say as much as well. It seems Eric Roth was a part of a redraft, but from the book I think it's pretty clear how it was adjusted. This is not to say much about PTA involvement, but Roth definitely commented without denying it in the last interview I heard. Will look into and give quote when have a minute.

erok910 wrote: Fri Mar 21, 2025 6:40 pm ... Also, when looking at the book and (one of the first) drafts, you can see the film and awards consideration draft being pretty distant from each other. The interviews say as much as well. It seems Eric Roth was a part of a redraft, but from the book I think it's pretty clear how it was adjusted...

Not to say that Anderson wasn't involved, but didn't Scorsese himself do a significant rewrite which is why he's a credited screenwriter on the film?

This was my point. It went through so many iterations: to assume it was by way of one individual is a bit myopic. That's what I was trying to mention. With the interviews showing their change of thought in the movie. I may be off anyway, obviously. I guess I was thinking that it was clear how the original draft had changed drastically to the final draft. Not much more.

Even before the film was shown in public, it was very well documented that the film was thoroughly rewritten to change the focus and perspective of the film, and Roth discussed that very early on in interviews (again, well before the film's release) making it clear that it wasn't his decision to drastically change the script. Like many auteurs, Scorsese rewrites many (maybe all) of his films, often in collaboration, even with cast members and often without credit (though not in this case). None of that was ever questioned, only the suggestion that Anderson is the "real" author of the film. The idea of him rewriting the script isn't implausible - it's not only frequent practice in the industry but Scorsese has enlisted major writers to do a rewrite on scripts without credit. The problem is unless someone tangible (not some mysterious and anonymous source) actually goes on record to confirm his contributions, the claim begins to look like conspiracy lunacy, where "non-denials" are meant to be a smoking gun with certain believers claiming every scene must be Anderson's work because everything is so obvious now that they know the real truth.

Ah, I see what you're saying now. I'll find the Eric Roth quote I was talking about and post it here, but I also have definitely noticed this weird PTA fandom pop up on the internet in the way you're speaking, for sure. And definitely agree that the most I've really heard from Roth were more or less non-denials. When you're right, you're right: the credits are definitely there at the end and clearly say Scorsese and Roth, and it definitely does not say Paul Thomas Anderson/Leo DiCaprio, etc.

Regarding the above discussion, Anderson confirmed some level of involvement/feedback provided:

I bring up rumours that Anderson did uncredited writing on Ridley Scott’s Napoleon and Martin Scorsese’s Killers of the Flower Moon. Does he also get advice from other directors? “I love to contribute in any way I can if somebody reaches out for help. Both of those things were a thing with Joaquin [Phoenix], a thing with Leo, and obviously with Marty and Ridley. It’s always a privilege to say, ‘Let me tell you my thoughts on the script.’”

I love and hate this movie so much. The book is incredible, i love all of the artists involved- and the movie is just terrible. So many great aspects from subtitle subversion to the minimalism it sticks to. But damn, it has almost no charisma short of a conversation or two at the end. And the decision to change that main character is detrimental to the film and all of the performances, in my opinion. Can definitely elaborate, but i did like the eperformances in it very much.

I hate this movie so much, and i feel a big part of it is that its so literally whitewashed that i dont see the content. The ending was egregious in my opinion, for a guy who said he didnt want to co-opt the story by inserting himself and his familial history into it- he sure convinced me of the opposite. The ending is interesting for sure, but what the fuck were they thinking? Other than in a subversive narrative way, like what was the idea? Its so self involved that it forgets the audience may not be of the same ilk in telling history. Its so off to me. I loved watching it again because there is a journey. (Note: dug Caught Stealing, 28 Years Later, One Battle from this year)

Having said that: i found this movie to be mediocre as it blindly stuck to facts and ideals rather than feeling and tone. I love some scenes, but this thing was interminably boring for being such an incredible and captivating story in nonfiction. Scorsese has an idea, same with wolf of wall strret, but i wish i knew what it was. Because it didnt show itself in my opinion. I think im being harsh because of the book, i have had this feeling about other adaptations like the looming tower and going clear. But this book seemed so primed for a terribly scary and intense crime mystery that the film came across as pedantic at best. And i dug The Irishman enough to watch it 5 or so times. And The Irishman is absolutely pedantic in nature.

While i have space here talking about the irishman, i recommend everyone to check Ripley. Both adapted by Zaillian. That show was a masterpiece. Some weird decisions, but not like The Irishman- and defiitely not like this movie.

An epic elegy of greed, betrayal, and murder, Martin Scorsese’s masterly adaptation of David Grann’s true-crime best seller unfolds in 1920s Oklahoma, where the discovery of oil brings extraordinary wealth to the Osage people. Into their world comes ne’er-do-well army veteran Ernest Burkhart (Leonardo DiCaprio), who joins his duplicitous uncle (Robert De Niro) in a horrifying scheme to rob the Osage of their money and land. Lily Gladstone charges the film with her transcendent performance as Burkhart’s Osage wife, Mollie Kyle, gradually awakening to the evil that surrounds her. With Killers of the Flower Moon, Scorsese brings a dark chapter of American history to the screen with gripping narrative power and a profound feeling for the weight of systemic injustice.

DIRECTOR-APPROVED 4K UHD + BLU-RAY SPECIAL EDITION FEATURES
New 4K digital master, approved by director Martin Scorsese, with Dolby Atmos soundtrack
One 4K UHD disc of the film presented in Dolby Vision HDR and two Blu-rays with the film and special features
New documentary featuring Scorsese, actors Leonardo DiCaprio and Lily Gladstone, author David Grann, Osage Nation Principal Chief Geoffrey Standing Bear, Osage cultural consultant John Williams, editor Thelma Schoonmaker, and other members of the cast and crew
“WahZhaZhe”: A Song for the Osage, a new documentary illuminating the film’s final shot, featuring Scorsese, Chief Standing Bear, and six members of the Osage Nation
Excerpted archival interview with director of photography Rodrigo Prieto
Excerpts from the 2023 Cannes Film Festival press conference featuring Scorsese, DiCaprio, Gladstone, Chief Standing Bear, and actor Robert De Niro
Short program on Noah Kemohah’s cover art
Trailer
English subtitles for the deaf and hard of hearing and English descriptive audio
PLUS: Essays by critic Vinson Cunningham and film programmer Adam Piron

New cover by Noah Kemohah

I’m kind of surprised there’s no commentary (maybe it’ll be added to the features before release?). I’m personally not big on commentaries, but I feel like this film would be served well with an academic track by an historian (preferably Native American, of course).

WrathOfAguirre wrote: Mon Dec 15, 2025 7:09 pm I’m kind of surprised there’s no commentary (maybe it’ll be added to the features before release?). I’m personally not big on commentaries, but I feel like this film would be served well with an academic track by an historian (preferably Native American, of course).

Scorsese hasn’t done one since The Aviator. His new film is going into production very soon

If this existed and was released in their DVD days this would have had thorough and plentiful supplements to give the viewer as much backgroundand history as possible. Sad to think this edition could have been jampacked to the likes of The Battle of Algiers but at least we get a physical release.

This is an incredible announcement given that it's likely the most coveted region-locked UHD for many region A collectors

Kracker wrote: Mon Dec 15, 2025 7:22 pm

Zot! wrote: Mon Dec 15, 2025 7:17 pm

Never Cursed wrote: Mon Dec 15, 2025 7:05 pm By the way, in case anyone didn't assume so, the Killers of the Flower Moon cover was designed by an Osage photographer (and lawyer!)

Interesting, I thought there was some controversy surrounding its portrayal of the Osage in the picture...I hope the extras might address this. I like the cover!

Im sure this conversation was already had but I dont see how. The movie was made in cooperation with the Osage but sure there are some politically indulgent people taking it upon themselves to be upset for the Osage regardless.

"Politically indulgent", is a admittedly a funny descriptor. I believe the argument was that even if it was sympathetic, KotFM is doing yet another view of the Indian from the perspective and because of the involvement of the White Man. I find that a legitimate concern, and can find little to counter it with.

Zot! wrote: Mon Dec 15, 2025 8:10 pm

Kracker wrote: Mon Dec 15, 2025 7:22 pm

Zot! wrote: Mon Dec 15, 2025 7:17 pm

Interesting, I thought there was some controversy surrounding its portrayal of the Osage in the picture...I hope the extras might address this. I like the cover!

Im sure this conversation was already had but I dont see how. The movie was made in cooperation with the Osage but sure there are some politically indulgent people taking it upon themselves to be upset for the Osage regardless.

"Politically indulgent", is a admittedly a funny descriptor. I believe the argument was that even if it was sympathetic, KotFM is doing yet another view of the Indian from the perspective and because of the involvement of the White Man. I find that a legitimate concern, and can find little to counter it with.

I believe that was the point of Martin Scorcese doing his fourth wall break at the end, Martin essentially saying that "yes Im aware I'm a white guy telling this story but that's why i'm using my position as one of the most well-known living filmmakers to do it". He obviously involved the Osage as much as possible all along the way, even having one of them design the Criterion edition. Overall, they were very satisfied with the way the Martin and the film treated them and that should be good enough.
So a legitimate concern that was obviously quelled.

https://www.today.com/popculture/movies ... rcna120899